(Real) Lessons from Election 2010

I don't suppose too many of us are surprised by the results of yesterday's elections. As a Democrat, I am deflated today, but I am certainly not shocked. I'm sure the media pundits will all be feeding off the carcass of this election cycle for weeks, pretending to understand what it all means. I personally know better than to presume that I know what it means, and I will refrain from analyzing the mood of the electorate or predicting the future of the nation based on these results.

What I do know is what went wrong in terms of the election process as a whole. It seems we've outgrown the "business as usual" template for political campaigning and reporting. I really do think the way we've gone about things is old, tired and in sore need of some serious upgrading. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, let me offer some ideas with which both the left and the right may agree.

The reality of the situation is this: even with all the available coverage of political candidates and campaigns, voters still manage to remain unaware and uninformed in so many ways. In fact, it could be argued that this lack of awareness is a direct result of the overwhelming amount of available information out there today. If you're someone who leans right, there are cable channels, newspapers and websites which will present "news" from your perspective, and nothing but. The same holds true for those who lean left. It's pretty clear that most voters tend to seek out their own particular safe havens, and dwell there without venturing beyond them. This severely limits the information and viewpoints that they are exposed to, and at the end of the day, no matter how much time people spend reading and viewing, nobody learns anything.

There's also the (very large) segment of the population who has simply switched off altogether. They are sick of the hype and disgusted by the system, and have decided that they'd rather not participate in the process at all. They have no respect for any politician or party, and no motivation to become involved.

For both the ideologically rigid and the politically apathetic, there are certain truths that apply. I think the media, both parties and all politicians need to accept these truths now, and learn a lesson or two about how to better handle the campaign and election process next time around. In that spirit, here are the real lessons of Election 2010:

NO MORE DEBATES. The debates I watched over the past several weeks were complete wastes of time. On the local and state levels, I saw nothing that even approached a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions. Candidates no longer answer the question, regardless of what question is being asked. The debate process has degenerated into a platform for extended political ads, in which talking points are endlessly regurgitated and digs at the opposing candidate(s) are volleyed at regular intervals. If these political wanna-bes can't even handle giving a straight answer in a debate, we cannot hope to get straight answers from them once they are elected.

NO MORE POLITICAL ADS. When an ad comes on the television, who is actually paying attention? When a flyer appears in the mailbox, who is actually reading it? Even if some people do see them, how many change their minds or find new points of view to consider as a result? I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of political advertising, both broadcast and print, is completely ineffective at this point in time. There are some ads which have attracted attention for their sheer nuttiness/entertainment value (demon sheep? "I am not a witch"?), but I would bet my house on the fact that no one who cares enough to vote is using the ads as a source of information on which to base their decisions. The amount of money spent on advertising is insane, and a waste of epic proportions.

NO MORE ROBOCALLS. One of the worst ideas ever in the history of politics. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine that anyone does anything other than screen their calls or hang up once the robocalls start coming in. Again, a waste of time and money.

NO MORE POLLS IN THE NEWS. If politicians want to do internal polling to let them know what campaign strategies are working and which are not, that's fine. But when the polls are the focus of every news report for months, it hinders the democratic process. I can tell you that, here in my home state of Florida, there were so many people who "knew", months ago, that the Democratic candidate for Senate, Kendrick Meek, had no chance to win and should just drop out, because the polls told them so. Similarly, when I did some "Get Out The Vote" work for the Dems, I saw incredible numbers of people who felt there was no point voting for the incumbent Congressman from my district, Democrat Ron Klein, because the polls showed his GOP opponent to be leading by a sizable margin. These polls depress voter enthusiasm and turnout by convincing people that the results are already a forgone conclusion, long before the election even takes place. Additionally, they are notoriously flawed and can be affected by many different factors. To feature them as gospel on so many news networks and websites is irresponsible journalism. News outlets may as well use a Magic 8 Ball or an Ouija board as a source.

NO MORE MEDIA COVERAGE OF INSIGNIFICANT CANDIDATES. There was a ludicrous amount of press on Delaware's Christine O'Donnell during this election cycle. This, despite the fact that she was never seriously expected to win, no matter whose side you were on. She, and other kooky, long-shot candidates, ate up a ton of media time, distracted a huge chunk of the voting public from more important topics, and further solidified the idea that our government is a circus rather than a functioning body of public servants.

With such over-saturation of the political landscape, is it any wonder that American voters are either completely polarized or completely indifferent? The current means of campaigning and of covering elections has jumped the shark. Unless things change, I know that, by the time this nation is asked to vote again, it will have been beaten senseless by the mind-numbing barrage of ads and media coverage that it has had to endure, just as it was this time. And most of those who have endured it will either remain unswayed by the hue and cry, voting the party line blindly, or will ignore it all and choose not to choose. That is certainly not the best way to elect our leaders. The system needs to be radically revamped, and soon, so that we may find a way back to meaningful debate, dialogue and democracy before we are asked to head to the polls again.

(Real) Lessons from Election 2010

Wilson lied. Period.

In case you missed it, non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact has weighed in on Representative Joe Wilson's commentary. You can click here to read it - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/ - or you can scan the bottom line right here:

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"You lie!" (in response to President Obama saying health reform would not insure illegal immigrants.)

Joe Wilson on Wednesday, September 9th, 2009 in the audience at a joint session of Congress

Joe Wilson of South Carolina said Obama lied, but he didn't

....so who's the liar now? Please, let's all recognize that there's no other way to spin this: Representative Wilson may have been impassioned and emotional, but he got the facts wrong and he chose the wrong avenue to lodge his complaint. Many people have written to political sites today to support Wilson, because they say he "spoke truth to power".  Well, if it WAS truth he was speaking, then we might take that into consideration. But his anger was based on his personal interpretation of language in the bill, and from all objective accounts, there is no intent on either side to provide government-funded health care coverage to illegal immigrants. If the language in the bill is still ambivalent on that point, then Representative Wilson and others who share his concern can hammer those details out before the final measure is written, and they can vote against any bill which they feel they cannot support. That's how to solve the problem - not shouting out in the middle of a speech.

More importantly, his intentions do not excuse his actions. We cannot, and should not, throw civilized discussion out the window because we believe that the end justifies the means. Why should Representative Wilson get a pass for being out of order during a joint session of Congress? He's there to do a job, and the halls of Congress are his workplace. Just like any other workplace, Congress has certain guidelines for conduct. If you break the stated rules regarding conduct at any job, you get a warning, at the very least. Representative Wilson should be no different and anyone who wants to excuse his error is just inviting a huge, unruly mess. If spontaneous, disrespectful outburts are OK for him, then it needs to be OK for everyone else to do the same. His supporters have to tell America, straight out, that there is no longer any room for rules, manners, decorum, tradition, order or common courtesy in American government. It's a free-for-all, and everyone who is angry enough about something can just yell at everyone else until the cows come home.

That's great, but just remember, it's not just conservatives or republicans that get angry. Liberals were angry when we organized in support of Barack Obama's campaign. We were angry when we pulled in a record number of young voters, Hispanic voters, and other voters who had not traditionally chosen to vote (or to vote for Democrats) in previous elections.  We were angry when we raised record sums of money for the campaign. We were angry when we rose up as a majority and asked the Republican party to get out of the White House before they started any more wars based on false information, ran up any more foreign debt, burned bridges with any more of our former allies and took away any more of our civil liberties. We were angry - and we won. We won BIG. Not by trying to shout down the opposition, but by outworking them, and by addressing people's concerns instead of stoking people's baser instincts. It was a good strategy then and it's a good strategy now, but if those on the right simply cannot keep their rage in check long enough to do the work that's needed for their side, as we did last year, they will not be able to connect with the majority of Americans.

So if conservatives are changing the rules of the game, and declaring that it's all about who can shout the loudest from now on, they should remember that they are not the only ones with something to shout about.

Wilson lied. Period.

An open letter to Representative Joe Wilson

During this evening's Presidential address to the joint session of Congress, South Carolina made a real contribution. Representative Joe Wilson called out "You lie!" to President Obama in response to a point about insurance coverage for illegal immigrants.
This is a perfect crystallization of the ugliness that has infiltrated and poisoned our nation in recent months. All the crazy juice that people have been drinking, from town hall meetings to tea bag protests to birther rallies - it all came into focus in this one, nationally-televised WTF moment.

When those elected to represent us publicly embrace the angry mob mentality, in the hallowed halls of Congress no less, we all have to realize that the lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.

And so I am posting the content of an email I sent earlier this evening to Representative Wilson, and I encourage all of you who found his actions inexcusable to do the same. His address is http://www.house.gov/formwilson/IMA/issue.htm. While you're at it, let the Speaker of the House know that you support official Congressional censure for the "gentleman" from South Carolina: http://www.speaker.gov/contact.
 
AN OPEN LETTER TO REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILSON

Representative Wilson - I realize that, because I am not a member of your constituency, my opinion may be irrelevant to you. However, I am first and foremost an American citizen, and my allegiance to this great nation and the principles on which it was founded mean far more to me than my place of residence or my party affiliation. I would have expected that, as an elected member of Congress, you would share my "Country First" attitude, but your deplorable actions during the President's address before the joint session of Congress have proven otherwise.

I feel compelled to write to you because, even though you were not elected to represent me or the place where I live specifically, you were elected to serve the country and to advance the best interests of its people. This is something you failed to do tonight, and I must protest in the strongest possible terms the way you have contributed to the backwards momentum of public debate in this country. I have watched political events on television for decades and have never witnessed such an utter lack of respect for the President. In addition, the tactic you used devalued your own office as well. You should be ashamed, sir, and I would not be surprised if many of your constituents were ashamed of you as well.
 
Unfortunately, I realize that in this partisan world in which we live, you may also have many constituents who applaud you for having the "courage" to yell at the President during his address. Make no mistake, those who do are part of the problem, just as you have become tonight. Your outburst served no purpose other than to underline the sorry state of American political discourse. You and those who may support or Heaven forbid, emulate you, will have much to answer for when the process of open discussion and debate in this country finally buckles under the weight of the unchecked anger, fear and self-righteousness of those who respect no boundaries, or even the Golden Rule, in their efforts to drown out the words of others with whom they do not agree.

You have already issued an apology - I am in no position to say how sincere it is, or whether it was merely another act of political self-interest. I do know that many Americans share my disgust and will be letting you and the rest of the political world know how we feel, whether it matters to you or not. Frankly, what I and others think shouldn't even enter into it. You should already know yourself that what you did was uncalled for and unacceptable - we the people should not need to tell you that, but since we have been forced to do so by your lack of self-awareness, I do hope you will listen.

An open letter to Representative Joe Wilson

The GOP's amnesia epidemic

Wow - this GOP furor over the president's upcoming speech to school kids is making me realize that we have some reeeally short memory spans here in the US. And it seems as if the problem is growing at an alarming rate.  Strangely, this amnesia epidemic seems to be limited to those in the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party.

As a public service to those unfortunate folks, I'd like to spend a little time refreshing their memories. So gather round the monitor, my GOP pals, and come back with me in time....

We'll begin our journey in 1787, at a time when our founding fathers were struggling to create a suitable governmental framework for the United States of America. They had a strong desire to prevent the type of tyranny and oppression which the original colonists had endured under the monarchy of Great Britain. The Constitution was drafted with this goal in mind, and in the hopes of convincing the individual states to ratify it, a series of essays known as the Federalist Papers were published.

Eighty-five such essays were published in the year following the drafting of the Constitution. One of the most important was Federalist No. 10, written by James Madison, who went on to become our 4th president and the man generally credited as the "Father of the Constitution". In this essay, Madison lays out the case for a government based on the needs and wishes of a majority, instead of on the desires of smaller groups.  Madison acknowledges that it is human nature to divide into groups rather than to unite, and points out how differences among groups can blind people to the common good:

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

Hmmm...sound familiar? Madison goes on to state that, though these conflicts will always remain, the governmental model proposed in the Constitution will prevent a minority of citizens, however outspoken they may become, from imposing their will on the majority:

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution...To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.

You still with me, conservatives? That means, in a nutshell, that even when you decide to wage war against the other party, and even when you do it in your loudest voices and with your most militant attitudes, you cannot overrule the majority. When an election takes place, you have the opportunity to send your chosen party into power. But if that election ends in a majority win for the other guys, you are obligated to accept it and to wait until the next election. In the meantime, your attempts to obstruct the the democratically-elected president from doing things you personally don't agree with are EXACTLY what the framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent, for the good of the nation. You have become the tyrannical faction against which the American majority must defend itself.

Alright, our next stop in time is 1988, where we find then-President Ronald Reagan addressing a group of middle-school students. Let me repeat that: a sitting president is giving a speech to schoolkids!  How outrageous! And yet, nobody was making any unholy stink about this at the time. I'm sure it didn't sit well with everyone, but it never became a subject of public outcry.

Chances are, people who didn't agree with Reagan's agenda could have been grinding their teeth when they heard his comments; much of it sounded like an ad for his administration, and for the GOP. The topics addressed included taxes, gun control and the deficit - all highly politically-charged topics, and all being discussed solely from a Republican viewpoint. To read the complete transcript of Reagan's speech, click on this link: 

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/111488c.htm

So, conservatives, was Ronnie's little talk an attempt at "indoctrination" of our nation's youth? Was his sinister agenda really to brainwash our children into adopting the GOP party line? And if you don't think it was, then why is President Obama's desire to address schoolchildren making you all froth at the mouth so much? Yeah, he did ask for the speech to be televised...but Reagan's speech was also carried nationally on C-Span and the Instructional Television Network. It was available for any educator who wanted to share it with the class, just as Obama's will be. The key word here is "available". No mandate exists from the White House, and everyone is free to do as they please with regard to watching or not watching the speech.

In addition, you folks don't even know what the president intends to discuss. He plans to make the content of his speech available before he goes in front of the cameras. Wouldn't it make some sense to check that out and find out what he's actually going to say before you pop off in public about how this is all about "indoctrination"? At the very least, realize that this is not the first time a president has spoken directly to young people in this country, and that it has never been an issue before, so you may want to tone down the moral indignation just a notch or two, to avoid looking like total wingnuts.

Our third stop is earlier this year - January of 2009, to be precise. In the week just before George W. Bush was due to leave office, the Gallup organization analyzed his favorability ratings over the course of his presidency. They had his approval rating as 31% at that time, and they posted his 2nd-term average as being 36.5% over the last 4 years of his presidency.

Now, I'm not a math whiz, but it seems to me that all those people who were unhappy with Bush couldn't just be Democrats or liberals. Statistically speaking, there had to be a large number of Republicans and conservatives who disliked the way he was running the country. So I tend to get a bit confused when I see all the noise in the press from the right-wingers of this nation. Are we supposed to believe that they really feel we'd be better off keeping things the way they were under Bush? That the attempts Obama is making to steer things in a different direction are worse than how things were going when the GOP had the run of the place? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Our last stop in the time machine is a vague period in the past...it's hard to tell when it began or when it ended. All we know is that it is, most definitely, a time gone by. It was a time when Americans were Americans, even more than they were Republicans or Democrats. It was a time when civil discourse was actually civil, and where opposing views could be heard and debated without the threat of bullying, violence, or rabid anger. It was a time when we wanted things for the betterment of our nation as a whole, and found ways to work together in order to make those things happen. It was a time before TV and radio personalities told us what to think, say and do, and when we were proud to think for ourselves instead of being part of a mob mentality. We were reasonable people once, with a great spirit and a real sense of shared purpose. It's a shame we've left that behind in the name of win-at-all-costs political partisanship. But maybe you conservatives can remember that time from the past, and recognize your better selves in those memories. Don't you think you owe it to your country to be that better self once again?

The GOP's amnesia epidemic

Senator Ted Kennedy and his health care dream

As y’all know, I’ve been out of the blog loop for ages. I just have too much else to do to bother with it in general. But today, I do find myself wanting to post something on the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, and on the continuing fight over health care reform. 

The man wasn’t a saint; he was a Kennedy, after all, and a politician. Still, Senator Kennedy was an amazing force of nature in his legislative life, and a man who actually had the fortitude to stick to his guns on any issue that was important to him. In the face of resistance and anger from many of his colleagues in Washington – often including those in his own party – Kennedy never wavered when he believed that he was doing the right thing. And as the reviews of his career as a lawmaker have been reminding us over the past 36 hours, he was doing the right thing more often than not. A man born to privilege, without any need to concern himself with those of a lower economic station, became the champion of the poor, the victimized, the desperate. He genuinely wanted to help people with the work he did as a member of Congress, and that is not something that can be said with a straight face or a clear conscience about almost any other politician in our nation today. 

In today’s New York Times, there are many articles, reports and rememberances regarding Senator Kennedy. As I read through the paper this morning, one sentence jumped out at me from all the newsprint. In an editorial about Kennedy, the Times wrote that the senator always held fast to the conviction “that politics be grasped and administered throught the prism of human needs”. This struck me like a lightning bolt from the blue. It is a crystal clear reminder of what the American government should be about, and a reminder of how far those in power have strayed from that noble ideal.

 In the current debate about health care reform, Kennedy’s passion and main focus for decades, we have seen our elected officials at their worst. We have witnessed lies, distortions and scare tactics on one side, developed and propagated for no other reason than to mislead the public and block any reasonable discussion of the facts. On the other side, we have seen proponents of reform failing to respond strongly or quickly enough, and we have seen many taking the path of least resistance, giving up on important points of reform (like the public option) in order to move things along more smoothly and just get something – ANYTHING – passed. In all of this, we have been let down in a huge way by those who have been sent to Washington to do their best on our behalf.

 What about “the prism of human needs”? Many in Washington (and in the voting public) have been brainwashed into believing that the fundamental obligation of our government should be to protect capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth, or from the intentions of this country’s founding fathers. This was always intended to be a nation of betters – better freedoms, better opportunities, better ways of life. Our elected officials have a duty to make sure that these things are available to every American citizen. Why should we stand back and accept the nonsense that is currently being spouted by those politicians whose only concern is to protect the market? Businesses should not be the priority here – people should. There is a gaping hole and a staggering inequity within our current health care system, and any politician who refuses to address this in a meaningful way, out of concern for the health of the free market, doesn’t deserve to represent the citizens of this nation.

Let there be no doubt, no distortion, about this fundamental truth: the American government DOES NOT exist for the purpose of protecting capitalism. It must allow it, and it must provide space for it to flourish, but it must not aid and abet capitalism at the expense of the struggling among us. It must not be so beholden to industry that it fails to provide for those citizens who cannot find the help they need within the current system. It must not favor business out of a sense of obligation to the biggest donors, the loudest lobbyists, or the most powerful political action groups.

 This reform movement has been framed by many opponents as a choice between a complete government takeover of the health care industry and a healthy free market. This rhetoric serves as a powerful tool for influencing peoples’ opinions, but it is not grounded in reality. What this reform bil is actually about is a choice between the rights of citizens and the rights of companies. The main objection that the anti-reform people have is that a public option would make it more difficult for private insurance companies to thrive.

 Let’s examine that concern for a moment: the insurance industry, which has prospered for decades by offering as little coverage or compensation as legally possible to millions of Americans who are in need, might not be able to make the kind of money it’s used to making if the low-cost, universally-available government insurance program becomes a reality. This, according to the opponents of reform, is akin to socialism. If I may paraphrase Barney Frank, on what planet do these people spend most of their time?

 If the town hall warriors and their leaders would give the bill an honest reading, they’d know that creating and providing a government-run health care program, ALONGSIDE private insurance, is the real goal here. Nobody wants to dismantle private insurers, or remove the option of private insurance from those who wish to pay for it. It is certainly true that a government-run program would make a huge dent in the bottom-line profits of private insurance companies. But why is this socialism? The government has no responsibility to ensure that businesses are always successful, or that companies may exist without competition from any other source. And as many calmer and more rational experts on the subject have pointed out, the US Postal Sevice never put FedEx or UPS out of business. There has been room for all of them to co-exist and grow. If the Postal Service didn’t exist, then FedEx and UPS executives would be a whole lot richer, without a doubt. But that does not mean that the government-run Postal Service is a socialist entity. It means that the commercial services like FedEx and UPS need to be more competitive in order to attract and keep customers, and there’s nothing wrong with making a company work for its money.

 

It is precisely this point that makes this such a clear-cut situation. The insurance and health care industries haven’t got any competition to force them into being more reasonable in their treatment of customers. They have been allowed to reign unchallenged, and it has made them all-powerful. Anyone who has ever experienced the frustration of arguing with a representative over their coverage, or who has been dropped or denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition, knows how dangerous that sort of unchecked power can be to the average American. Unchecked power over health or illness, over life or death, in the hands of corporations whose only motive is profit-based, should not be protected by the government and should not be considered the American ideal.

Opponents of reform also like to make dire predictions about how bad it would be for the government to control any part of the health care system. The scary talk about how medical services will be rationed by the government? Pure rubbish. Nothing in the bill calls for any form of rationing. Moreover, access to doctors, medications and procedures are most definitely rationed in America right at this moment – except that it is the insurance and medical industries who are doing the rationing.  Only the fortunate ones receive coverage, and out of those who are covered, only a fraction receive top-notch, complete coverage. Is this OK with everyone who opposes reform? Is it really more acceptable to allow companies to pick and choose a handful of people to insure while the majority of Americans are left without protection, simply because it would be far too financially damaging to the company to actually insure sick people?

 The bottom line is that without a public option, any reform bill will be inefficient to truly bring about the changes that are so desperately needed in our health care system. There may be honest arguments had about how to make it happen, and the details will require a lot of work to figure out. But blocking it from happening should not be the goal of any politician or citizen who wants the best for their country and their countrymen. America is one of the last prosperous industrialized nations in the world to consider or implement some form of government-run health insurance. That fact ought to be the scariest one of all to anyone who is paying attention.

And those politicians who are trying to stay in the good graces of the insurance and medical industries by distorting facts and lying to us ought to be ashamed of themselves. Particularly today, when the world is looking back and remembering the singular efforts of the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Most legislators could never come close to the type of tireless effort he put into his work over his lifetime. But maybe they could at least try. Maybe they could take just a moment to clear ther heads of the rabid partisanship and take a clearer look at what it is they were really elected to accomplish, and who they were really elected to represent. Senator Kennedy never forgot why he was in Washington, and maybe his passing will remind some of his colleagues to use “the prism of human needs” to gain a better perspective on how to best meet the challenges ahead.

Senator Ted Kennedy and his health care dream

Hear that sound?

That's the dull thump of the other shoe dropping.

Those of us who supported and voted for Barack Obama have been riding pretty high lately. It's tough not to be happy - giddy, even - when you've worked or hoped for his victory and seen it come to pass. And to observe the groundswell of approval he has received from the American public during this transition, it has truly felt as if we, as a nation, had made a major shift into a more positive zone after 8 long, horrible years.

Of course, the cynic in me has had to take a back seat to my optimistic side for several weeks now. But my cynicism wasn't dead, only dormant. This week, it was roused back into life by the senational, sad and utterly shocking stories regarding Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.

Of course, the first thing we Obama-heads wanted to know was, "Did Obama have anything to do with this?" So far, the prosecutor involved in this case, U.S.  attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, has stressed that the president-elect is not under investigation, nor is he accused or suspected of any wrongdoing at this time. If anything, much of the information that has appeared in the media indicates that Blagojevich actively dislikes Obama, and has been especially blunt in his criticism and complaints regarding Obama and his transition team. All of this ought to comfort the faithful, and assure us that our next president hasn't let us down by rooting around in the mud with this guy.

And yet...I am getting a bad feeling about this. I know it may be bad form on my part, but I can't help thinking that there may be more to this than Obama's letting on. I don't necessarily believe that there will be any solid links to the pay-for-play political maneuvering that Blagojevich was practicing. But there have just been a few things that smell kinda funny in the wake of these revelations.

First of these has been the statement made by David Axelrod, last month, indicating that the president-elect had spoken to Blagojevich about possible candidates to fill his Senate seat. This statement was reported in the press when it was made in November, yet after the charges against Blagojevich were made public this week, Axelrod retracted it. He said he had been "mistaken" in saying that the men had discussed the Senate seat. Now, Obama is supposedly running a pretty tight ship, and any off-message comments made by his aides and advisers are dealt with swiftly and surely. Yet Axelrod's comment had stood, uncorrected, until this scandal reared its head. It begs the question: Why would this piece of misinformation be allowed to remain floating around for a month?

Another worrying item is the fact that Obama did not immediately respond in a clear, strong way to the news of Blagojevich's transgressions. Condemnation of the highest order was called for, but all Obama told the press was that he was "saddened" and "sobered" by the news. While others were already calling for Blagojevich to resign, Obama failed to do so until today.

Finally, there's just the simple issue of proximity. Obama has served the state of Illinois for years, and has never had a clue of this governor's behavior or temperament? It sounds as though Blagojevich has been quite vocal and not even slightly concerned about hiding his agenda from the crowd around him. Maybe I don't understand the nature of that state's political structure, but it just seems as if people throughout the state knew that this man was up to something, and I am hard pressed to believe that neither Obama nor the main players on his team knew anything about it before this week.

Well, I know this will be on the front pages for a while yet, and there will be much more information to follow. I will not pass judgement now, but I will wait with a guarded optimism to find out what exactly happened, and who played a part in allowing this despicable man to do what he was doing. Obama has a press conference tomorrow, and I hope some solid answers will be forthcoming. He is being tested before he even takes office, and for all our sakes, I hope he passes.

Hear that sound?

Aw, c'mon, Jeb...give us a break!

Alrighty then...I have been way too busy to sit and blog for the past several weeks. Now that the election's over and I'm no longer spending hours on following politics, I have gotten back to my normal routine and am running around like a crazy person, dealing with my kid's school and social schedules, getting ready for Christmas, and all that good stuff.

I had to stop in and mention something though. As I was surfing the net this evening, I came across this article from Marc Ambinder's blog on The Atlantic website. It says that Jeb Bush, the brother of George W. and the former governor of my home state of Florida, is thinking of running for Senate, following the announcement that incumbent Mel Martinez will retire.

Folks, do I even have to tell you that this disturbs me, on many levels? I swear, if he does run, I will lose a good percentage of the happy mojo I've had goin' for me since Obama won the general election. Seriously, what a buzzkill - here I was, all excited that the days of Dubya were numbered, and then this news rears its ugly head. We just can't seem to get rid of these Bush wingnuts!

Florida loved this guy when he was governor, for the most part, though I don't really understand why. As you may have guessed, I was never a member of his fan club, but I was in the minority at the time. However, I do wonder if the place has shifted a bit since then. We were the only state in the Southeast to go blue for Obama. Maybe the grip of the conservative voter has loosened just a bit, and maybe we're entering the 21st century at last. But I wouldn't bet on it, and I can just see Jeb riding a wave of GOP love right into the Senate. All those white men who freaked out when McCain lost are frantically looking for a way to edge the Republican party back into the sphere of governmental influence, and they would weep tears of joy if they had a chance to restore Jeb to an elected office.

And so, with a sense of deja vu mixed with creeping dread, I wait to hear the pronouncement from on high, when and if it comes. I'm sure it will, because Jeb always wanted to get back into the fray and this opportunity is one he just wouldn't pass up. I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed that something comes up and prevents him from going through with it. Who knows? Maybe now that he's gonna have all kinds of time on his hands, Dubya will call him up, and offer to take his bro on an extended fishing trip. For 5 or 6 years. Off the Somali coast, where the pirates will hijack their vessel and we won't have to hear from either one of 'em ever again. *sigh* A girl can dream, can't she?

Aw, c'mon, Jeb...give us a break!

OBAMA!!!

Nothing I could say right now would tell the story as well as these pictures do:



















God bless Barack Obama, Joe Biden and their families, and God bless America. :-)

OBAMA!!!

Waiting to Exhale

Well folks, I have been MIA from the blogosphere for several weeks now. I've spent some time on a family trip, and doing some stuff at my kid's school. But I have also been trying, in my little way, to help Barack Obama become our next president.

Emails have been sent...friends, neighbors and family have been hassled...phone calls have been made...lawn signs have been put up...money has been donated...letters to local papers have been written...all in the hope that I could add something positive to the support that Obama's been getting here in my home state of Florida. I have been very encouraged by the signs I see around me that, just maybe, the Sunshine State will get it right this time around.

I know that nothing is certain, and as Obama has been repeating over and over during these final days, we can't take anything for granted. So I have been working at it and waiting for November 4th to come, and now that it's here I am in a weird frame of mind.

On the one hand, I feel extremely anxious and unsettled. It's almost like waiting for Christmas morning, only I'm not sure if I'm getting a present or just coal in my stocking. The anticipation is greater than I expected, and I am not sure how agonizing the next 24 hours will be. The wish for time to hurry up hurry up HURRY UP ALREADY is almost overwhelming. And if things don't go Obama's way, the disappointment will be overwhelming too.

But on the other hand, I feel so good knowing that I've been a part of all this. I know many people gave more time, money and effort than I did, so I am not tooting my own horn here. But just like millions of other Americans, I have some personal investment in this presidential race. I gave time and I gave a shit and I am proud to have joined with all those who did the same. I am excited to know that this country may finally be ready to elect an African-American president for the first time in its history, and I am especially happy that it's this particular man.

I was fortunate enough to be in the crowd in Sunrise last Wednesday, when Joe Biden and Barack Oabama came to speak to us here in South Florida. It was the night of Obama's TV infomercial, and at the end there was a moment where the broadcast cut to a live feed from our event. Some of you saw and heard me and my fellow Floridians for a few minutes, cheering and chanting. But it was the stuff you didn't see on TV that made the most impact on me.

I arrived hours before the doors opened that day, and already there were hundreds and hundreds of people waiting to get inside. It was chaotic, hot and crazy out there. But it still made me happy to be a part of it. As we all stood in the sun and tried not to pass out, we talked and shared our thoughts and hopes, we laughed together, we got to know each other a bit, and we even sang and danced a bit. We were all buzzing with an energy that I don't think I've ever felt before. We all had that sense of being lifted by a common purpose. It is one of the most powerful feelings in the world, but one which we tend not to experience much anymore.

We, as a nation, tend to keep ourselves to ourselves more often than not these days. In the past 8 years, the polarization that we have experienced under a devisive administration has torn us into factions. The additional stresses we have undergone - war, economic turmoil, political scandals - have only served to further fuel our bitterness, our fear, our pessimism, and our desire to assign blame, point fingers and draw battle lines in the sand. We became divided and weak, and we have lost a great deal of our standing and our stock value in the eyes of other nations. But most troubling of all, we have grown used to this sorry state of affairs and we have become a nation where 90% of us know we are on the wrong track.

To be in that arena in Sunrise last Wednesday night, you wouldn't have known that to be the case. The stands were packed full of people who, by the end of the night, believed again. We were all ready to move forward and leave the dark clouds of the past 8 years behind us. And it was Barack Obama who lit that spark in us.

As he spoke, and I looked around me at the faces of my fellow Floridians, I saw everyone. Not the sea of white, privileged, angry faces I've seen in news reports from McCain and Palin rallies, but a diverse mix of people who really are America as it is. I was struck by the way all of us had come together that night, and how we had found this common ground. It made me feel the sort of enthusiasm and patriotism I had not felt for years, and it felt good to get that back.

I have always been a proud American. I have always believed that I am damned lucky to live in this country. But I have not seen the glimmer of true greatness in this country's leaders during my lifetime, until now. I don't think he's perfect, or a saint, or anything like that. I know he will not have it easy, and that many of the promises he has made may not come through during the next 4 years.

But I do feel, very strongly, that Barack Obama wants to be a great president. I believe that he wants us all to be great Americans. And I believe he can guide us and serve as a positive example as we strive to reach a better place as individuals, as communities and as a nation. I believe he deserves a chance to be our next president, and I hope he will be.

If you haven't yet voted, VOTE. If you know friends, family members or co-workers who haven't voted, get them to the polls. If you can, help the campaign of your choice to assist and support voters in your community. And if you all do your part, we will have a clear winner by this time tomorrow. Until that moment, I'm waiting to exhale.

Waiting to Exhale

McCain - Palin: Political agitators

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise...All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach...Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent." - Adolf Hitler

Dear Senator McCain and Governor Palin,

I am ashamed of you. If you had any sense, you'd both be ashamed of yourselves as well. Your contempt for Barack Obama is one thing. Your contempt for American voters, as well as your contempt for the election process, is what most concerns me. You have no clue about the true extent of the damage that you have done, and are still doing, as you drag the nation deeper and deeper into the mud.

Your campaign stops are increasingly shrill and ugly, as you stand before crowds and cameras, denouncing Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers. You criticize Obama for knowing and working with a man who became infamous for his blatant displays of hatred and anger against his perceived enemy, America. Yet you do so knowing that it will inflame similar feelings of hatred and anger among many of your supporters - hatred and anger against their perceived enemy, an enemy you have created  by demonizing Barack Obama. What gall you have shown in endorsing and encouraging one type of hate over another.

And how narrow your view of life must be. Do you really think this is all about winning in November? How single-minded and ingorant you both are to think that these tactics only affect this election, or the people within our nation. The world is watching us, and they are laughing themselves to death. They see a populace divded by its own government, and they see your polarizing style of "leadership", and they hear the vitriol spewing forth from your lips, and they know America has started to hit rock bottom. Our allies fear for us and wonder if we will ever get back to being a leader worth following. And our enemies? Well, you "Country First" mavericks are basically handing our asses to our enemies on a silver platter. They know they don't have much work left to do. If they sit back long enough and leave us to our own devices, we will simply destroy ourselves from within, as the two factions you helped to create within the American public fight each other and try to tear each other down, and our fragile hopes for tolerance and unity give way to finger-pointing, fear and loathing. These are the seeds you are sowing with every word you speak as you try to discredit your opponent, and you must be ready to take responsibility when the bitter, poisonous fruit of your efforts begins to grow.

Don't tell me you didn't know it would come to this. You knew full well that there are many people out there who already had a lot of worries and distress brewing in their psyches, and they want someone to blame. They want to get angry. You certainly knew, as well, that there are already many people who have an issue with the idea that an African-American could possibly become our next president. They just needed permission to freely express their bigoted viewpoints. Well, you gave them that. Now that the door is open, you can't really go back and close it.

And just look at the people who are starting to walk through it: hecklers who yell out wildly inappropriate things - including threats and calls for violence - and who feel emboldened by your thinly veiled racial messages. Is this the demographic you were hoping to capture? Is this truly the America you hope to lead? Take a look at the type of person you're currently pandering to, the kind of guy whose vote you're selling yourselves out to get:

COPS: MAN THREATENED VOTER OFFICIALS OVER TARDY REGISTRATION CARD

OCTOBER 8--Angered by a delay in the receipt of his voter registration card, a Louisiana man today threatened to shoot election officials, claiming that he urgently needed to cast a ballot to "keep the n*gger out of office," according to police. Wade Williams, 75, was arrested this morning on a felony terrorizing charge after allegedly calling the Registrar of Voters and warning that he would come to the state office and empty his shotgun unless he got his registration card. Using profanity and racial slurs, Williams told a state official "about needing to vote to 'keep the n*gger out of office," according to an Ouachita Parish Sheriff's Office affidavit, a copy of which you'll find here. Though the document does not name the candidate to which Williams is so violently opposed, it seems likely he was referring to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. After being arrested at his Monroe home, Williams was booked into the Ouachita Correctional Center, where the below mug shot was snapped. En route to the jail, he "continued his 'tirade' about niggers and also stated that he had a shotgun, but had it hidden at his residence," reported Lt. Michael Judd.


Take a good, long look at this guy's face. Look at the sorry-ass, backwards thinkers that you are expressly trying to win over with your smear campaigns. You both want to win no matter what, so you're running a truly ugly race, targeting the ugliest underbelly of American society. Surely there can be no pride in such a vctory, but I guess you're happy enough to take whatever you can get at this point.

I am encouraged by the fact that you are failing in your efforts, and by the fact that the likelihood of you winning the election is dwindling more and more each day. But even though you will probably lose, I want you to know how disgusted I am by your recent antics. You are campaigning in a manner that shows no dignity, no respect for your opponent, no respect for the American public, and no respect for yourselves.  All I can hope is that you'll get exactly what you deserve on November 4th.

[digg=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_Palin_Political_agitators]

McCain - Palin: Political agitators

A special place in Hell for McCain and Palin

John McCain and Sarah Palin both seem to know exactly who can go to Hell.

McCain, while running against George Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, was incensed that the Bush team had run smear campaigns against him (how funny is that?). He was particularly angered by their attempts to bring his adopted Bengali daughter into the mix, by spreading rumors that "John McCain has a black baby".  In an interview, McCain stated,  "I believe there is a special place in hell for people like those."

And just the other day, Sarah Palin misquoted Madeline Albright during a campaign appearance, proclaiming, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women." Albright actually said "women who don't help other women", but whatever.

Point is, these two sure do seem to be right with the Lord. They're pretty confident that they have the moral authority to discuss how other people deserve to burn in Hell. And if the recent tactics against Barack Obama are any indication, they think there's a spot in Hell for him, too. The fact that he worked on a couple of community projects with William Ayers, who was once a radical extremist - even though by the time Obama met him, he was a respected and law-abiding member of the community and of the educational establishment - is evidence enough for McCain and Palin that Obama is "too risky" to be president.

While listening to the sound bites from McCain and Palin's campaign stops yesterdaay, and hearing the links between Barack Obama and William Ayers repeated again and again, I realized that the whole thing sounded sorta familiar. I did some quick Googling, and I found what I was looking for.

Here is a description of the life of another important and well-known figure, written by a highly-respected scholar; see if you can spot the similarities between this and the Obama/Ayers discussion:

This person..."was the most active resister perhaps known to history...a troublemaker, par exellance". He "was not just provocative; his actions were illegal...His entire life led up to the culminating confrontation with the powers of his day...His words were revolutionary...All his actions vary in focus and intensity; all are illegal and draw the ire of the ruling and religious authorities."

In addition, "[He] dined with a social outcast...fraternizing with the enemy...[He] publicly embraced all those excluded by societal laws..."

So who was this "troublemaker" who, like Ayers, defied the law in order to challenge the powers that be, and who, like Obama, associated with the outlaws of his society? Well, it just so happens that it was Jesus. You know, the Son of God, the King of Kings...that guy. Seems He had a real tendency toward civil disobedience, according to writer and lecturer Father John Dear. The author is a Jesuit preist who, earlier this year, was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Dear, in his 1994 book, The Sacrament of Civil Disobedience, writes:

"The Gospels make plain that Jesus regularly mingled with 'sinners and tax collectors'...By sitting at table with a tax collector, sinners and other public outcasts, Jesus must have shocked everyone."

Discussing Jesus healing the lepers, Dear says, "This act was civilly disobedient because it went beyond the designated boundaries of society, from those nebulous areas where some people are considered 'insiders', to those clear-cut, off-limits places where others are declared 'outsiders'...Jesus deliberately touched the leper who came begging to him, and in doing so, Jesus broke the sociological and religious barriers of society...Jesus was now a marginalized outsider: he had violated all the taboos." Hmm, insiders and outsiders...where else have I heard this lately?

So, am I saying that Obama = Savior? Christ, no! But I am saying that one of the basic tenets of Christianity is "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Which begs the question: why is Obama being castigated by McCain and Palin for associating with a former radical activist? Are men not allowed to work side by side on charity boards because one of them was once a criminal? And if they do work together, do you truly believe that the experience makes the other man a criminal too, by extension?

I thought the GOP were all up on their Bible studies, but I guess they forgot that Jesus had time for everyone, including prostitutes and theives. In fact, Jesus saw fit to accept, as one of His 12 apostles, a man known as "Simon the Zealot", who was a fierce Jewish nationalist and, as a young man, subscribed to the beliefs of the Zealots. According to Wikkipedia,  "the Zealots objected to Roman rule and sought violently to eradicate it." But isn't that philosophy kinda like...domestic terrorism, or something? And yet Simon the Zealot was OK by Jesus, was selected to hang with His posse, and was eventually canonized as a Saint in the Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Churches. I can only assume that, when "Christians" like McCain and Palin ask "What Would Jesus Do?", they don't mean it literally, because if they did, then Barack Obama wouldn't be catching the crap he is right now.

Perhaps the McCain folks hadn't heard the news yet, but there's this whole "Ten Commandments" thing, and one of the items on that list is, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Any discussion of how Obama "palled around" with William Ayers, despite a lack of any evidence to support a relationship of that nature, would probably run afoul of that "false witness" idea. I am willing to bet that there's a very, very  special place in Hell reserved for those who break a commandment in the pursuit of political gain.

It is a sad time for all of us as Americans, because, at a moment when we desperately need a leader to guide us to better times, we are being asked to accept a team of self-serving politicians who would rather point fingers at others than get their own house in order. After years of divisive politics under a polarizing administration, one candidate wants to stick with the status quo and maintain an "us-vs.-them" mentality. I can't help wondering who could have advised McCain and Palin that hypocritical self-righteousness is a good way to win the hearts of Americans. Now, who could have come up with such a diabolically bad strategy? Hmmm...I don't know...could it be...



[digg=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/A_special_place_in_Hell_for_McCain_and_Palin]

A special place in Hell for McCain and Palin

Palin's secret debate strategy

Oddly enough, I can't be bothered to post too much about the VP debate last night. I think everyone has already either seen the debate itself, or the highlights, and most people already heard the general consensus of opinion, which was that Biden won. I concur with this sentiment and I don't even think the Republicans honestly expected any result other than that. Plus, there's the fact that the debate really didn't matter too much, regardless of how either candidate performed...so the less time wasted on that the better.

So, because it's been a very busy week and I am feeling too lazy to write tonight, here's an item which may explain the secret of Sarah's success during the debate. Thanks to my good friend Brady, who dug this nugget up and sent it to me:

Palin's secret debate strategy

Sarah's Big Debate: "Lord, make a way..."

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our main event! In this corner, the defending champion...wearing kid gloves and a muzzle, it's Bunglin' Joe Biden! And in this corner, the challenger...hailing from Wasilla, wearing full body armor and lipstick, let's hear it for Sarah Palin, the Alaska Disasta'! Alright, let's get it onnnn!

Oh, how I've waited for this day..the Palin/Biden face-off is tonight's Must See TV, and expectations are running high (or low, depending on how you look at it). I can't remember being so stoked for a vice-presidential debate since...well...EVER. I realize that the debate is actually pretty inconsequential - I can't imagine anyone changing their mind or their vote based on anything that may happen tonight. Still, for pure entertainment value, this could be hard to beat.

I would not actually bet on a full-scale nosedive from either candidate, to be honest. I think that Sarah Palin has been prepped within an inch of her life, and that she will have absorbed enough advice and strategy from her handlers to get her safely through an hour and a half. Plus, she probably had someone from her church in Wasilla flown out to meet her before the debate, so they can lay hands on her and pray for her to be victorious, and to steer clear of all forms of witchcraft. I think that it might go a little somethin' like this (man, this crazy shit never gets old!):



As for Biden...well, he's always got a solid chance of saying something wildly off-base, but hopefully he will rein himself in and deliver, and not get too cowed by his opponent. I realize he's at an immediate disadvantage, because she might play the "sexism" card if things seem over her head, but he really ought to treat her the same way he would treat a male opponent. It's only fair and that's not an unrealistic standard to apply in this situation. And if she can't take it, that's kinda tough.

As Willy Wonka once said, "The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last." I can't wait to see the debate, but at the same time, I already know what a downer it'll be when it's over. What the hell will I have to look forward to after that? Even if Palin does crash and burn - especially if she does, though I don't really think she will - I'll be a bit disappointed, just because that would be the final nail in her coffin, and she would just fade from the scene as much as possible after that. Just imagine: no more interviews, no more babbling, no more embarrassing blunders, no more Tina Fey skits on SNL...how scary is that, huh? it's gotten to the point, over the past few weeks, where I crave a shot of Sarah Stupidity just to get myself going in the morning, the way some people crave coffee. If the supply of Stupid suddenly disappeared, I simply wouldn't know what to do with myself!

So let's all take a moment and pause to reflect on the gift Sarah Palin has brought us all...the gift of Stupid. Maybe she'll survive and be a fixture on the Stupid radar for years to come...but just in case things go wrong for her tonight, I got backup. Whenever you need a fix, just help yourself to this video:



*sigh* It was probably too good to last, anyway......

[digg=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Sarah_s_Big_Debate_Lord_make_a_way]

Sarah's Big Debate: "Lord, make a way..."

Reality check

This has been a dizzying couple of weeks. The ups and downs of the financial crisis and of the attempts to repair it are coming fast and furious. Congressional bickering and finger-pointing has left us no closer to a solution than we were when this whole mess started. And during this turmoil, the candidates have been struggling to find the right angle to take. I've seen a lot of criticism directed at both McCain and Obama, although McCain is getting the lion's share of it. It didn't help him to make such a big stink about how he has been "stepping in to solve problems for the American people", when the bill he was trying to lay claim to got defeated later the same day, causing a massive plunge on Wall Street.

I think the media, and most voters, are truly missing the point here. The candidates are both correct when they try to stress the urgency of the situation, and the need for some feasible agreement to be reached as soon as possible. For each day that the issue remains unresolved, the money crunch worsens and the effects are being felt in businesses and households all over the nation. But the problem comes when we expect the candidates to come up with the answer. Reality check - neither McCain nor Obama has been sworn in as president yet. In case you forgot, there is still a guy named George W. Bush residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and he's got a lease there until January of next year. This is HIS problem right now, and it is HIS job to rally the administration and Congress to work out a deal. His failure to do so is the problem here, so laying the blame for the bailout's defeat on either candidate is a bogus move.

What, exactly, do people expect McCain and Obama to do right now? They are senators - no more and no less, and both have been removed from the day-to-day business of Capitol Hill for months now as they campaign for the presidency. How, exactly, are they responsible for leading Congress to the answer for all our nation's economic woes? After a crash that was years in the making, it is unrealistic to look to either one of them to solve it all in a week or two. They have both voiced their belief that an agreement on a plan is urgently needed, and they have tried to encourage their colleagues to find some common ground. But for either of them to interject themselves into the process in a greater way would be inappropriate right now, and probably none too helpful, if the events of the past several days are any indication.

The McCain campaign has alleged that Obama has been "watching from the sidelines" during this crisis, and has not done enough to rally support for the president's bailout proposal. Reality check - during yesterday's vote on the bailout plan, 60% of House Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while only 37% of Republicans did so - despite the McCain camp's insistence that "It's really Senator McCain who got all parties around a table to hammer out a deal". The truth is that Congress is not focusing on the needs of the presidential candidates right now - many of them have their own election bids to worry about, and pissing off their constituents is not on their agenda. They do not answer to McCain, or Obama, and to add the presidential race into the mix is a distraction from the task at hand.

It's time for the media and the public to recognize that the leadership on this particular issue needs to come from the White House. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Bush and his cohorts, after years of alienating and disappointing everyone around them, have fallen into the lame duck zone, where their powers of influence are virtually nil. Still, we cannot lay the responsibility for a solution to the bailout issue on the presidential candidates. Not yet, anyway. When one of them is elected, he will need to get his shit together pretty fast and take action to clean up this mess on a long-term basis. But for now, the immediate concern is the short-term needs of the market and of Americans who are scared and strapped for resources. Reality check -the president and the leaders in Congress must be the ones to step up and make something happen. It's time for everyone to get off the partisan blame train and admit that, even if it's tough to do, a plan is needed and the time to pass one is now.

[digg=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Don_t_blame_McCain_or_Obama_for_bailout_s_failure]

Reality check

Peek-a-boo, I see you...

Well, I was wrong, and I couldn't be happier about it. Right after the debate on Friday, I felt, as did the majority of the mainstream media, that the result was a tie. But over the past couple of days, the results of some post-debate polls have been released, and what do ya know - most Americans felt that Barack Obama won. Nearly every poll taken over this weekend showed a clear edge for Obama as a result of his debate performance, and that even includes the right-wing goobers over on Fox News. I've watched debates and debate coverage for a long time, and to me, this situation is rather remarkable. We all know how the media spins things, and how voters' opinions usually reflect whatever they've heard on TV or on the radio. But this was different. The media didn't even call a winner in this debate. And yet, without being told what to think by the pundits and talking heads, the people declared a winner. They spoke up and said that one man impressed them more than the other, and the man they preferred was Obama.

I have to tell you, folks - I am feeling pretty good about this. Better, in fact, than I've felt in a long while. On my best days I think I'm a realist; on my worst days I think of myself as a cynic. And I am particularly jaded when it comes to the subject of politics. But the numbers are showing me that things may not be as bad as I ususally assume they are. So how did people manage to come up with such a positive assessment of Obama's debate performance?  Well, I've got a theory about that, and it all has to do with visibility.

Up until the debate, the McCain campaign was doing their best to control the way the candidates were seen by the American public. In order to spin their own image to people, they repeated certain lines and catch phrases (Maverick! Reformer! POW!) at every stop and in every speech in an attempt to solidify the mythology of the McCain/Palin ticket. They cut off press access and have held virtually no interviews or press conferences on the campaign trail (on the Straight Talk Express, no less...irony, anyone?). They especially protected Sarah Palin from speaking to the press until it was impossible for them to do so any longer. To spin a negative image of Obama, the McCain campaign created a slew of attack ads, most of which were dishonest, distortional and disgusting. They attempted to control what voters saw about Obama. And based on these ads, voters could very well have believed that Obama was dangerously inexperienced, an advocate of comprehensive sex education for 5-year-olds, and that he also intended to raise taxes on working-class familes and turn our health care system into a vast federal bureaucracy.

The debate changed all that. For the fist time in this race, viewers got to see McCain and Obama side by side, without the spin of ads or media commentators. They saw John McCain refusing to look at his opponent for an hour and a half. They saw him continue his streak of distortions and half-truths as he repeatedly misrepresented Obama's positions. They saw him trot out names and dates from the past 26 years of his life in Washington, but they did NOT see him admit any responsibility for his contributions to the current downturn of the American economy, or for his errors in supporting a rushed invasion of the wrong country in the Iraq war. They saw him unable to convincingly fend off claims that his policies are direct continuations of Bush's policies. They did NOT see him mention the middle class - even once - and they did not see any evidence of the big reforms he's been talking about on the campaign trail. They saw McCain himself, separated from the cheering crowds and the red, white and blue filter of his ads, and they weren't too thrilled by what they saw.

But more importantly, they saw Obama - many of them, no doubt for the first time. Many expected to see an empty suit, an angry radical, or an overblown orator. But they saw instead a man who looked and sounded ready to lead. They saw him graciously pointing out those ideas on which he and McCain both agreed. They saw him remaining focused, confident and consistent. They saw his strong grasp of problems and solutions, people and places, and  ideas for the future of our nation. They saw someone who has the ability and the willingness to utilize both diplomacy and military action, as well as the temperament to know when each approach is appropriate. They realized that they had no reason to be afraid of him, even though he looks different and has a foreign-sounding name. Obama was no longer an unknown quantity. And this simple act of seeing Obama for themselves, rather than through the lens of McCain's campaign, made all the difference.

There is still plenty of time for things to change, and McCain has shown us how much he loves shaking things up with a curve ball every so often. Maybe in his desperate attempts to win, he'll actually hit upon a gimmick that works and win back some support. In any case the race will likely remain close, right down to the wire. But no matter what, I am delighted to know that, at least for now,  my fellow voters are looking beyond what they've been shown by the news media and by the ads, to see the possibilities that Obama is offering this country. He's not perfect. Nobody is, especially politicians. But maybe he does have the ability to undo some of the problems that have been dragging Americans through tough times. Maybe he does have the good judgment to make the right choices when we most need him to. Maybe he does understand those of us in the middle class, and maybe he does care enough about what we are going through to make helping us a bigger priority than taking care of corporations and lobbyists. Maybe he's OK after all.

And that, my friends, is what hope is all about.

[digg=http://digg.com/politics/Polls_show_Obama_won_1st_debate_why]

Peek-a-boo, I see you...

Debate: tied on performance, but Obama wins on facts

Very nice of Senator McCain to join us for the first debate last night, although I realize it kept him away from solving the economic crisis for us. Seriously, in hindsight, how overblown was his whole display this week? Now that it's all over and done, did that debate REALLY stand in the way of anyone doing anything that needed to be done in Washington? And during the time McCain WAS in Washington, did he contribute anything at all to the progress Congress were already making on the problem?

Oh well, that's last week's issue...now it's time to move forward and look at the debate itself. I feel that both men performed well, and that neither made any major mistakes that would give their supporters reason to change their minds. There were certainly stylistic differences, most notably the fact that McCain never engaged Obama directly, and acted as if his opponent wasn't standing right on the same stage with him. Obama did try to address McCain directly, and also tried to point out that he was in agreement with McCain on certain points. This is a tactic that I feel could've gone either way; some may perceive it as being too concessionary and others may see it as diplomatic. I personally feel it was a sign that Obama can handle and acknowledge opposing points of view, which is a positive trait in my opinion. But I do feel that Obama had a few opportunities to really hammer McCain, particularly during the economic discussions, and he held back more than I would have liked. I guess he is waiting to do the heavy hitting during the next debate, when the economy will be the focus.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that both men scored some solid points and neither surprised me in any way. I'd be very surprised if there was any major shift in the polls as a result of this debate. However, I really do expect to see a more lopsided result in Obama's favor after the economic debate - it was clear during last night's exchanges that Obama had a major advantage on that subject and that McCain will be hard pressed to come off as well once the financial crisis is the focus.

As usual, I am more about substance than style. So, even though the two candidates were pretty evenly matched on the effectiveness of their performances, I do feel that a more important factor than how things were said is the actual content of their statements, and how accurate those statements were. FactCheck.org has already posted their analysis of the facts presented in the debate, and - surprise, surprise! - McCain didn't do as well with that as Obama did.

If you visit the site, you'll see the details and can find their in-depth summary. But to boil it down for ya, here's what they found: McCain made 4 times as many outright false statements as Obama, and several other mistakes that, while not 100% false, were definitely off-base and not 100% true either.

1. Obama stated that Henry Kissinger, one of McCain's advisers, had advocated negotiations with Iran, without preconditions. McCain disagreed. A videotape of Kissinger speaking during a panel discussion, which took place only days before the debate, shows that he is in fact in support of meeting with Iran without precondidtions. In fact, another video of an earlier forum shows Kissinger expessing the same sentiment again. After the debate, Kissinger issued a statement specifying that he did not think the President should meet in such negotiations, but Obama made clear in the debate that he would follow accepted diplomatic protocol by starting negotiations with lower-ranking officials before he would become involved himself. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE. OBAMA'S STATEMENT: TRUE.

2. McCain claimed that Obama had voted to increase taxes on those making $42,000 a year or more. This was a resolution which was mostly addressing whther or not to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and it is a resolution which Obama supported. However, the specific language in the resolution stated that this referred to a sinlge non-homeowning taxpayer, whereas this did not apply to families or couples filing jointly. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

3. McCain claimed that Admiral Mike Mullen had specifically described Obama's proposed ideas regarding a timetable for withdrawal of troops in Iraq as "dangerous for America". Mullen did say that timetables set without taking into consideration "the conditions on the ground" would not be advisable, but he did not specifically comment on Obama's plan. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

4. McCain said that earmarks had tripled in the past 5 years. This is incorrect. Earmarks have actually gone down between 23 and 24 percent during that time frame. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

5. McCain, while discussing wasteful earmarks, said that $3 million had been appropriated for a study of bear DNA. This is correct, HOWEVER, what he didn't mention is that HE VOTED IN FAVOR of the bill which made the appropriations for that study. So there was more to that story, but technically...MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: TRUE.

6. Obama said that the current Iraqi budget surplus is $79 billion. This is incorrect; although some projections had set the surplus at that amount, current information indicates that the surplus amount is closer to $60 billion. OBAMA'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

7. McCain stated that the US pays $700 billion a year to buy oil from other countries. this is inaccurate; the actual amount is approximately $536 billion. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE:

8. Obama said that his tax cut will cover 95% of Americans. this is not technically accurate; his cuts will apply to 95% of families with children, and 81% of taxpaying households overall. OBAMA'S STAEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

9. Obama said that under McCain's proposed tax plan, employers would be paying taxes on the health care benefits they pay to employees. This isn't correct, but the truth is actually worse...under current law, workers do not pay taxes based on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain's proposed tax changes, workers WILL pay taxes on the dollar value of their employer-provided health benefits. Still, as far as accuracy goes... OBAMA'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

10. McCain claims that Obama intends to turn health care over to the fedral government. this is inaccurate. There will not be mandated health care for any group except for children Federal health care options for all othe Americans will be expanded but will not be mandated. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

11. McCain told a story about Eisenhower's letter of resignation, written in case the Invasion of Normandy would have failed. Eisenhower did write a letter accepting responsibility in case of failure, but did not offer to resign. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

12. Obama discussed reducing our troops in Iraq within 16 months. He had previously said that all troops would be withdrawn within that time frame. This shows a shift of position, so...OBAMA'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

13. McCain claims that Obama does not consider Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (which he mistakenly referred to as the "Republican Guard") to be a trrorist organization. Obama has in fact named the as a terrorist organization on more than one occasion. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

14. McCain called Obama "naive" for his call that both parties show restraint after the Russian/Georgian conflict. Obama did say this, but the characterization as "naive" is debatable, since the official statement from the White House used the exact same language and called for "restraint on both sides". This is certainly an opinion rather than a fact, but fairness dictates that MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

15. McCain bragged about saving taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a Boeing contract that he felt should not be awarded. This is true. HOWEVER, what he did not mention is that there was later an investigation into whether the bidding process for this contract was handled unfairly. Seems there may have been some self-interest involved in the way McCain fought the Boeing contract, rather than a concern about protecting taxpayers' money.As it turns out, people who are now McCain advisers were lobbying for Boeing's rival, EADS/Airbus, to win the contract. McCain himself wrote to the Department of Defense to advise against checking into "improper subsidies" which EADS/Airbus may have received. P.S. - EADS/Airbus has contributed $15,700 to McCain's presidential campign. Again, there's more to this story, but technically...MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

16. McCain claimed that Obama is opposed to storage of nulclear waste. Obama is not opposed to storage of nuclear waste but does want storage to be safe. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

17. Obama claims that McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy proposals. This is inaccurate. McCain stated that he had not voted against any such proposals, and laughed "No one could be opposed to alternative energy". However, he is also wrong. The fact is, McCain has voted against alternative energy proposals 11 times. SO... OBAMA'S STATEMENT: FALSE, and MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

18. McCain and Obama discussed the role that Obama's subcommittee plays in Afghanistan policy. Both stated different aspects of this committee's scope, and both were technically correct. SO...MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: TRUE and OBAMA'S STATEMENT: TRUE.

19. McCain claimed that he broke ranks to vote against sending Marines into Lebanon in 1982. However, Marines had been sent in August of 1982, 3 months before McCain was elected in November of that year. In 1983, Ronald Reagan signed a bill which would authorize a deployment of 18 months for Marines in Lebanon, and McCain did break party ranks to vote against this bill. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

If ytou're keeping score, here's the final totals:

MCCAIN: 8 false statements, 5 not exactly true statements, and 2 true statements

OBAMA: 2 false statements, 3 not exactly true statements, and 2 true statements

Based on this, I think Obama wins on truth, and to me, that's more important thatn style. Next up: Palin faces off against Biden...I am practically drooling with anticipation...roll on October 2nd!

Debate: tied on performance, but Obama wins on facts

Where's the beef?

 

Remember the Wendy's commercial from the '80's, with that old lady yelling, "Where's the beef?" I can't help thinking the same thing after the fiasco on Capitol Hill yesterday. John McCain calls off the debate, the campaign and everything else, because he thinks going to "Warshington" and finalizing the bailout bill is more important than anything else. But he forgot to make a plan for what to do AFTER he got there, and he ended up doing and saying nothing helpful all day. If ever there was an example of the old saying, "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem", this was it. There was no guidance offered and no insight shared, and the day ended in frenzied media glare and bitter partisan bickering. What happened? Where was the input he seemed so desperate to share with his fellow Congressmen and women? WHERE'S THE BEEF?

This is just typical McCain -style over substance. Want to boost your sagging campaign numbers? Bring in Sarah Palin - she looks good and has instant surface appeal. Sure she's a bit inexperienced and not too great with the issues, but if nobody asks too many questions or watches too many YouTube videos of her in church, she will dazzle the base. Don't have a great track record or any new ideas to run on? Just throw some negative ads on the air...deflect attention from your own inadequacies and pray that most people won't bother to fact-check your empty accusations against your opponent. Want to look like a hero during a time of national crisis? Announce that solving the problem is your number one priority, then make a big show of abandoning everything else to focus on just that one problem.

Except, after all that "country first" rhetoric, he hasn't actually contributed anything to the process. He seems to think this is grade school and that someone's taking attendence. But you don't get points just for showing up to the meeting. If he really does want to get this task done, then he has to participate - offer some ideas, guide his colleagues, SOMETHING, especially after he painted himself as someone who just HAD to be involved in fixing this problem. If he has anything constructive to add to the debate, then what is he waiting for? Now is the time to show his hand, before we all decide that the whole incident was nothing more than posturing and pandering to revive his poll numbers.

Wasn't he the guy who prides himself in reaching across the aisle and supporting bipartisan solutions? Didn't he tell us he had the experience to lead in a time of crisis? Hadn't he been chiding Obama for what he called "inaction"? In fact the McCain campaign ran ads about Obama's supposed "inaction" this week..and FactCheck.org already posted a response showing why the ad was full of crap (what a surprise!) Well, last time I checked, there was no hand extended across the aisle to Democrats by Senator McCain - in fact, he couldn't even get his own party to come together and agree on a plan. He failed as referee when the fighing broke out and the discussions broke down. He still has not presented his own outline of what he wants the plan to include and how it should look. His statements to the press and in the meetings yesterday, by all accounts, were generalizations about being "optimistic" and indicated no clear direction or strategy. He flailed his way through the meltdown last week, and he seems to be flailing his way through this process as well. OK Senator - you wanted in on this and you said you were ready to roll up your sleeves and get something done. So...WHERE'S THE BEEF???

I'm sure today will be another day of drama and turmoil, and it still remains to be seen whether or not the debate will happen tonight as scheduled. But at this point, the first and most important question to be answered is, when is John McCain going to do what he said he came to Washington to do? Or will this turn into yet another campaign promise that gets broken before the campaign even ends?

Where's the beef?

Beyond belief

Just when I thought that things could not possibly get any more insane than they already were in the worlds of politics and finance...today happened. Yesterday, I said this situation in Washington was turning into a circus. Today, I realize I may have been too generous in my assessment. At least you know what to expect in a circus - some animals, some clowns, some crazy stunts performed without a net as the audience holds its breath...oh, wait. That sorta is what today was like, when you get right down to it.

I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime. I have to ask: if you're a McCain supporter, just what the hell exactly is it that you're supporting at this point? I mean, do you even know what the hell your candidate is supporting? Because after he spent the day riding in on his white steed to rescue the economy, nobody seems to know what he was there for. People IN HIS OWN PARTY could not explain to reporters what McCain's position actually is. Does he want to see a modification of the Paulson plan? Does he want something else altogether? Does he want a glass of warm milk, a blankie and a nap? There's no way of knowing, because he STILL hasn't taken a stand or made a statement that explains his specific concerns or criticisms on the bailout plan. After bringing the race for the White House to a grinding halt, forcibly party-crashing the proceedings on Capitol Hill, and pissing off David Letterman, there has been no result, no progress, no clarity. NOTHING.

I am at a complete loss. How can he still have people of sound mind who would vote for him? I cannot, for the life of me, understand it. After this past 2 weeks, he appears to be something more than people may have bargained for. They wanted a maverick, and he really was one once. But now? Well, now he's just a loose cannon - a schizophrenic shape-shifter who changes gears so rapidly and recklessly that you can hear the engine grinding from miles away. Careening like a geriatric pinball from talking point ("The fundamentals of our economy are still basically strong") to talking point ("America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system"), contradicting himself in ways that cannot possibly be ignored or explained rationally. Throwing out half-baked ideas, one after another, in a desperate attempt to sound like he's being decisive - let's form a commission! No, wait - let's fire the head of the SEC! Oooh, no, I got it - we should try that newfangled "oversight" thingy I've heard so much about! Yeah, that's the ticket!

This is not what should happen. This man has sold himself as the man with the plan, the one who could get things done, the reformer, the bipartisan enabler, the voice of experience and know-how. I ask you, in all honesty and in all seriousness: have his judgment, his demeanor, his actions, his words, his entire response to the economic meltdown, impressed anyone as being good enough? With so much at stake, and with so little room for error in the way this is handled, does it make ANYONE out there feel better to see how confused and erratic McCain's message has been? I don't know...I can only speak for myself, but this guy has me scared shitless. I know Obama's supposed to be the one with no experience, but McCain has failed spectacularly at his attempts to play the role of the capable leader in a time of crisis. The way he went from cluelessness about the true scope of the problem, to the other end of the spectrum where panic reigns and the sky is falling, just boggles the mind. And the childishness of suggesting that the debate should be called off, and that if things weren't resolved to his satisfation by Friday night, he wasn't gonna show up - well, that's just the most inane thing I've heard in a long time. To dictate to his opponent, the Debate Commission,  all his hosts in Mississippi who spent so much money, time and effort preparing for this event, and the American people that this debate could only go forward with his say so...it is arrogant, presumptuous and outrageous, and one of the least presidential statements he could possibly have made.

I know there are voters who still -STILL! - feel he is the best choice to lead our nation out of its current circumstances and into better times. But based on this past couple of weeks alone, I don't think those people are basing their vote on McCain's abilities as much as they are basing it on a dislike of Barack Obama. There is nothing scarier than the idea that people would knowingly and willingly choose someone who is already screwing things up in Congress (they had a bailout deal in play before he showed up today), before he even gets elected, just to avoid voting for someone like Obama.

You know what, folks? Obama's not a Muslim. He's not a terrorist. He doesn't hate white people. He doesn't support extremists or radicals. He has known, and even worked with, people who have dubious views or conduct (just like John McCain). He himself has never shared those views or engaged in that sort of conduct (unlike John "Keating Five" McCain or Sarah "Troopergate/Witchcraft" Palin). He is a legal US citizen. His middle name is Hussein. He comes off as a bit too cocky sometimes. He has not been in Washington as long as his opponent has. He is liberal. He is black. And all things considered, he is the better choice in this presidential race, so put your country first and get over it.

Beyond belief